Advertisement

May 23, 2013

Large Contributions to Both Chambers Make for Smooth and Speedy Passage of FDA Bills

The U.S. House of Representatives passed its version of the FDA user fee bill (H.R. 5651) Wednesday 387-5. The vote comes on the heels of the Senate’s 96-1 vote passing their version of the bill (S. 3187) last week. The different bills would need to be reconciled in a conference committee and receive approval from both chambers before receiving President Obama's signature.

Given congressional gridlock on many issues this year, the FDA bills are notable for the speed with which they have been taken up, and their near unanimous votes in both chambers. MapLight has conducted an analysis of campaign contributions to members of Congress from interest groups, mostly from the healthcare and pharmaceutical industry, that support this legislation.

Total Contributions (Congressional & Presidential) by Chamber From Selected Interest Groups Supporting S. 3187 and H.R. 5651:

Business

House

Senate

Grand Total

Biotech products & research $1,062,449 $1,251,121 $2,313,570
Medical supplies manufacturing & sales $2,207,553 $3,458,878 $5,666,431
Pharmaceutical manufacturing $6,294,434 $7,396,569 $13,691,003
       
Grand Total $9,564,436 $12,106,568 $21,671,004

Other interest groups that have supported these bills include Physicians, Health, Education & Human Resources, Non-profit foundations, Pharmacists, Small business associations, Health & welfare policy, and Consumer groups.

Organizations that have stated support for these bills include the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, Advanced Medical Technology Association, National Health Council, Biotechnology Industry Organization, and Generic Pharmaceutical Association.

Amendment on Imported Drugs

An amendment to the Senate bill offered by John McCain (R-Ariz.) would have allowed the importation of prescription drugs from Canada, where they are often less expensive than their American counterparts. Foreign drug importation is opposed by pharmaceutical interest groups such as PhRMA. The amendment was defeated 43-54.

  • Senators who voted ‘NO’ on this amendment received on average 2.8 times as much ($98,054) in campaign contributions from Pharmaceutical manufacturers as senators who voted ‘YES’ on this amendment ($35,558).
  • Only two senators (Ben Nelson D-Neb. and Chuck Grassley R-Iowa) out of the top 30 recipients of contributions from pharmaceutical manufacturing interest groups voted ‘YES’ on this amendment.

Submitted by Chris Gorin on May 31, 2012

© Copyright 2013 MapLight

About the Author

MapLight is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, research organization that reveals money's influence on politics.

Elected officials collect large sums of money to run their campaigns, and they often pay back campaign contributors with special access and favorable laws. This common practice is contrary to the public interest, yet legal.

MapLight connects data on campaign contributions, politicians, votes, industries, companies, and more to show patterns of influence that could never be seen before. 

We currently research money and influence in the...

510-868-0894

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.